20
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 227:
Line 227: + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 23:21, September 27, 2007
, 23:21, September 27, 2007"No Entry For 'Liberal' "
::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==
Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".
Why is this bias?